Posted on 03/23/2005 8:14:13 PM PST by Libloather
Passing Buck on Schiavo Cheats Public
By JOYCE PURNICK
Published: March 24, 2005
THE House of Representatives acted quickly over the weekend in the wrenching case of Terri Schiavo, so quickly that maybe those who opposed the special bill allowing the federal courts to take over the case might have missed the Senate's role - conspicuous for its silence.
The debate was confined to the House, for nearly four hours late Sunday night and early Monday. In the Senate, home of Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein of California, and, of course, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Charles E. Schumer of New York, nothing.
An objection from just one senator might have blocked or slowed the measure's march to the House. Instead, the Senate Democratic leadership approved the bill by unanimous consent, with no floor discussion about the Florida woman whose doctors say is in a "persistent vegetative state." What's going on?
Senators, at least those here in New York, are not talking for public consumption, but neither is their strategy well hidden. They have opted to sit back, let the courts take the heat and avoid a passionate attack from social conservatives who see this as an issue of life, like abortion, and want Ms. Schiavo's feeding tube, removed on Friday, reinserted. By not tangling on the Senate floor, the lawmakers have escaped broad accusation of opposing life.
Democratic Senators who are critical of the measure were saying this week that they had little to gain by taking on this issue. Constitutional experts assured them that there was little chance that the federal courts would step in or that the United States Supreme Court would intervene after refusing several times to hear the state case. They also worried that if they blocked the bill, they risked being blamed if Ms. Schiavo died before the House passed it.
Therefore, there is nothing lost and perhaps something to gain by their strategy, the argument goes, especially since Senator Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat, is up for re-election next year and could not have welcomed a Senate fight.
All very plausible. But there is one other player in this sad drama. The public and its right to know and learn. "This needed to be debated so people in the country knew what the issues were, knew the implications of what we were doing," Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, who led the Democratic House fight against the measure, said in a phone interview yesterday. "This was a constitutional crisis."
Perhaps the Senate decision to vote by unanimous consent was a politically savvy one, a way out of a no-win. But senators could still have explained themselves. They could have expanded on the House debate, could have raised questions about the separation of powers, state's rights, state versus federal courts, the right to die.
MINDFUL of their minority position and vulnerability from the political right, they chose not to. Even the normally irrepressible Mr. Schumer, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, has been reserved. On Tuesday, he said only that the case "shows how important the courts are as a check on the overreaching majority." By phone yesterday, he added, "People are starting to understand that these people are very extreme."
But he refused to discuss Senate strategy, instead referring a reporter to a staccato statement he issued on Monday, which said that the matter "ought to be left to the parents and the courts" and that Congress should not intervene again. Mrs. Clinton took a similar tone when asked about the case on Tuesday (before federal courts refused to intervene). "We should take politics out of it, let the court review and evaluate the law and facts and do what they do best."
Mrs. Clinton always carefully cherry-picks her issues, maybe more so now that she is increasingly mindful of her national reputation. But it still seemed strained on Monday when, just a few hours after the House vote, she confined her luncheon remarks to bland pleasantries in a genial speech at the New-York Historical Society about its new exhibit on first ladies.
Democrats are clearly hoping that the Republicans' tactics, led by House leader Tom DeLay, will backfire. Maybe it will, but no one can say they do not know what Mr. DeLay and his colleagues stand for, or at least say they stand for in a case freighted with as much political posturing as it is with human anguish.
A colleague notes that schiavo means "slave" in Italian. It fits, sadly, in a case in which a brain-damaged woman who has been unable to speak, feed herself or move much more than her eyes for 15 years has become a slave to the games politicians play.
you can't be held accountable for things you don't say ... shrillary is just a coward
Say, Murrymom, you're a huge civil rights leftist - aren't you? Where's your compassion towards Terri? (It's OK to go against the talking points handed down from your queen - Hillary...)
Hillary want's to make a name for herself, maybe it's time she got some attention. I'll write a letter asking if she's going to help Terri.
Hillary Rodham-Stalin salivates with each court ruling against Terri Schiavo. Just imagine what she and her socialist friends will do with the judicial power to choose who lives or dies in this country. Remember her big issue was always HEALTHCARE.
Where would Terri fit in the Hillarydeathcare plan?
Only in the eyes of the NY Slimes would such an explosive statement be classified as reserved.
Big Media should be all over this - any second now...
And in Nazi history "Schindler" means life-saving hero.
Ironic.
They don't do individuals. They are only interested in thousands of nameless faceless abstractions. Yeh, sure.
"shrillary is just a coward"
One of many! Almost every judge who's heard this case (only a handful have dissented) lacked the courage to suggest that Judge Greer might be wrong, after all...
something they do in a heartbeat when they're sympathetic to a plaintiff's agenda. I don't think they're all mercy-killers...I think it's the buddy system: they won't question another judge's finding because they don't want their rulings scruitinized. They're cowardly and vain. Still, it's a sign of what an abomination this case is when the "bigs" in the dem party are, for once, avoiding mics and cameras.
Do you suppose it's dawned on them that they're going to sound even worse than usual the next time they try to guilt Americans about people starving somewhere, enemy combatants being mistreated at GITMO, death row inmates, beached whales or whatever the cause-of-the-day happens to be? The answer they deserve from now on is: Where was your bleeding heart when Terri needed it?
Only Governor Bush can save Terri at this time.
CONTACT JEB BUSH HERE:
E-mail: jeb.bush@myflorida.com
Telephone: 850/488-4441
Fax: 850/487-0801
One thing I haven't been able to find is if Judge Greer was a klintoon apointee. Anybody know?
Good question. If not, five will get you ten that they share the same ideology.
You can be sure, the Clinton appointed judges
were ordered to just let Terri die.
Why do so many innocent people seem to die
with the Clinton's somehow connected?
It's such a pity that Sen. Clinton is still
in power, and Bill Clinton is moving on to the
United Nations.
Wat a horrible day it was, when the Clinton's
decided to make ambition and power their gods.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.